Science and Research Committee on Nov. 19th, 2025

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I yield my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

We will now proceed to MP Rana for six minutes. Please go ahead. You have six minutes.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here with us to discuss this very important topic of private sector investment in science and research and development in Canada.

My question is for Dr. Wright.

Thank you very much for being with us today.

You are from McMaster University, a little portion of which is in my riding of Hamilton Centre. Last week, I visited the medical and nuclear department of your university, and you guys are doing a fabulous job.

What are the biggest challenges Canadian researchers are facing when trying to commercialize their pharmaceutical research and bring it into the private sector?

[Dr. Gerry Wright]

Thank you very much for that, and I'm glad that you enjoyed visiting with Minister Joly. It was really great to have you here.

I think, as you're hearing, that there's a common theme, which is that one of our biggest challenges is a lack of risk funding that can move these discoveries from the laboratory. These are all very early-stage discoveries, so we need to de-risk them significantly in order to move them forward.

As you've heard from my colleague from the University of Ottawa as well, a big challenge is a lack of non-dilutive funding to move these discoveries towards commercialization. If we find a solution to that—and there are great models out there to follow, so we don't have to reinvent the wheel here—I'm confident that we will be able to move the needle in this area very significantly, to the benefit of all Canadians.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Could you please discuss the importance of a private sector investment in the pharmaceutical space? Are there any safety considerations for not investing in Canadian pharmaceutical companies?

[Dr. Gerry Wright]

Well, we've seen what happens if no Canadian companies are working in this area. We saw that during COVID-19. We end up being not on the leading edge of new discoveries and not being on the receiving end of new discoveries either.

We're seeing this now in the pharmaceutical industry in antibiotics, for example. Those are the risks that we face. We face a lack of access to new drugs if we don't help build this area.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Can you speak to how Canada's approach to commercializing health research and attracting private sector investment differs from the approaches of other countries and jurisdictions you have seen or worked with?

[Dr. Gerry Wright]

As I testified, I think one of the big differences in areas like Europe and the United States is in this valley of death. As you've been hearing, there's no good way to bridge that valley of death in this era. To do that requires non-dilutive funding, usually coming from governments or, as we've heard, potentially from philanthropic areas or agents who might be able to help move this forward. I think it is absolutely vital for us to be successful in this area.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Dr. Briggs, do Canadian universities and research institutes have the right culture to encourage commercialization? If not, what changes are needed to ensure that the researchers are committed to turning their innovations into market-ready products?

[Dr. Kyle Briggs]

One of the themes I touched on was harmonization or fragmentation of policies.

One of the barriers to post-secondary commercialization is that we don't have a harmonized approach to managing the intellectual property arising from publicly funded research. Every institution handles this in a very different way. They all have different models of licensing. All of this contributes to friction in the early stage, the phase of the commercialization process when we're missing this risk-tolerant funding.

That's the core of one of the recommendations that I made, which is to harmonize the approach and to have granting agencies provide active guidance on how universities should be managing the intellectual property arising from the research that they're funding.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Commercialization often involves risks and failures. How can Canada create an environment that encourages risk-taking among investors and researchers without compromising safety in their productions?

[Dr. Kyle Briggs]

It's a good question. I think the core of it is to reframe how we think about risk, the KPIs that we're using to measure these things.

Currently, most of the programs that are interested in supporting commercialization, both at the institutional and the public sector level, try to pick winners. They try to evaluate the success or failure on an individual project basis. I think to be successful in commercializing research—which, as you mentioned, has this very high failure rate—we need to think about aggregate impact. We need to think about risk at the level of an entire portfolio of projects, as opposed to individual projects.

Les Deeptech in France is a good example. It's a relatively new initiative that's deploying three billion euros over 10 years, aiming to create 500 new deep-tech companies every year over that time. They're targeting a 2% success rate, accepting that 98% will fail and that the 2% that succeed will more than pay for all of those failures.

That's the kind of portfolio-level thinking that needs to happen in order to be able to address this here.

[Aslam Rana, Liberal, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Do you think Canada should focus more on directly funding commercialization projects or on creating incentives for private sector investments?

[The Chair, Liberal, Salma Zahid]

I'm sorry for interrupting, but time is up for MP Rana. If you can respond to this question in writing, that would be great.

We will now proceed to MP Blanchette-Joncas for six minutes. Please go ahead.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to welcome the witnesses who are with us today.

My first question is for you, Ms. Licois and Ms. Déziel, from the network of college centres for the transfer of technologies, or CCTT. I would like us to address the notorious issue of structural inequity that penalizes Quebec and directly hinders its ability to innovate.

I want to talk more specifically about the funding that some technology access centres in Quebec receive through the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, or NSERC. Their funding does not seem to be equivalent to the funding received by research centres outside Quebec. I would like you to explain that to me briefly.

[Aurélie Licois, Director, Research and Innovation, Réseau des CCTT]

As it happens, there has been structural inequity since the technology access centres program was instituted in 2012. The annual amount granted to technology access centres in the Canadian provinces is $350,000, compared to $100,000 for those in the province of Quebec.

There are currently 68 technology access centres in Canada, and 29 of them are supported by CCTTs, or college centres for the transfer of technologies. Quebec has almost half of Canada's technology access centres. With 29 centres and a discrepancy of $250,000 per centre, the funding gap is $7 million per year.

I'll let you add up the total amount since the program's inception in 2012. A quick calculation leads to a $90-million difference.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Ms. Licois, you mentioned $90 million, but that's not counting inflation and the economic benefits it could generate in the communities.

Have you been able to quantify the economic impact?

[Aurélie Licois]

We haven't calculated it, but, as you say, any decrease in financial support in the communities necessarily has an impact on support and on the centres' ability to support businesses in their region or across the province.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Ms. Licois, what are the arguments for the discrepancy?

This has actually been going on since 2012. Maybe they don't understand when you tell them that in French, or they don't want to understand, or they want to continue to penalize Quebec.

What do they tell you when you criticize the unfairness and structural inequities?

[Aurélie Licois]

The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada is very aware of the inequity. A working committee is currently looking at the possibility of reducing or eliminating the inequity. Its work is under way.

In the most recent budget, as you saw, there was no reinvestment in applied research. As a result, the solutions sought by the working committee will necessarily be diminished. If they find solutions, other inequalities will inevitably arise.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

I'm trying to understand the temporary or partial solution they were imagining. Accreditation at a technology access centre takes five years. They offered to give you $300,000 in the first two years, but only $100,000 in the other three years.

I heard that the federal government was relying on the fact that your centres already had the support of the Government of Quebec. That's why it limits the amount it gives you. Is that true?

[Aurélie Licois]

Not entirely. Of course, the CCTTs have an operating budget in Quebec, but it's not connected to an NSERC grant. It's an operating budget for an organization, not funds that go towards a project like the technology access centres.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Okay. I'm trying to understand why the federal government limits its funding amount. Is it because you're too innovative or because the network is too developed? What rational arguments can explain the inequity?

[Aurélie Licois]

Since the program's inception, there has been no explanation for the inequity. That's the problem. There has been inequity since 2012, and it has been repeatedly mentioned every year for the past 12 years. A working committee is rethinking the entire technology access centre program, including its objectives. It is planning a complete overhaul, including funding, as well as a potential decoupling of some emerging technology access centres from more mature ones. All discussions are on the table at the committee.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Ms. Licois, in its last budget, Canada said that it wanted to be a “world leader in innovation”. You're an innovator.